Ladislaus:
Indeed, the primary reasons for the rupture were, in the order/priority I understand them, 1) a priest who was not conditionally ordained (he had refused conditional ordination) being allowed to offer Mass at SSPX chapels, 2) acceptance of Novus Ordo marriage annulments, 3) imposition of the 1962 Missal (these priests merely opposed being forced to use the 1962 Missal), and 4) suppression of the freedom to question the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.
...
With that said, I believe that some of the conduct of The Nine (and The Twelve) in the aftermath of their expulsion was somewhat scandalous and unbecoming, especially the legal machinations against +Lefebvre spearheaded by Father Cekada.
1. If they had issues with the SSPX, they should have simply LEFT. Rather than suing the Archbishop for the SSPX name, trying to take away as many properties/priests/faithful as possible, etc.
2. The conduct of the Nine post-expulsion is precisely what I have issue with. What they did was villainous and unfair to the Archbishop who only wanted to save Tradition and serve the Church.
And no, dying doesn't automatically make everything you did "good" or "Oh, it's ok, he's dead now, so it's all good." No, scandalous deeds still need to be criticized, for the sake of justice, and to right the wrongs that were committed! Some of these actions in the mid 80's had consequences which persist up to the present day.
So 4 of these Nine have passed before the judgment seat of God? So be it. God has judged them. But my place is to call out their publicly-known evils they participated in here on earth and fight against their legacy. I can only operate on the information I have regarding what is good and evil.
I don't care about their subjective guilt, because I'm not looking to judge them personally. I'm only in this for the truth and God's cause. And that cause was NOT served by Fr. Cekada & company's evil legal motions against the SSPX.
Less then half sided with the Nine, if I had to guess, I would say initially, that less than 25% sided with them. Most of those 25% sided mainly with the priest because worse than today, priests were extremely few and far between - so when you had one, you clung to him, and they knew this.No need to guess.
So those 25% went the priest's way after they convinced the people of the priest's agenda, which either was, or was to be, sedeism - of which the then Father Sanborn was the ring leader.
As for Lad's number 1, there's another thread going on now still beating that dead horse, and for his number 3, the reason the Nine rejected the 1962 missal is because they did not believe the pope was the pope, and on that account the 1962 missal was null and void.
Looking back on it all, it seems to me that it was all about power. By that I mean the priests wanted it but could not have it because everything had to go through their superior +ABL, or at least that's how it was supposed to work.
I think possibly the reason why you see only one side of the story is because you were raised up in an environment where the people surrounding you were totally loyal to the SSPX. The word “evil” probably became synonymous with the name “nine” when you were growing up.
Please keep in mind that most of those chapels were paid for by the laity and many of those laity sided with the Nine.
If the Resistance could have retained some the more loyal chapels from the neo SSPX, would that have been somewhat desirable?
No need to guess.
"The overwhelming majority of lay members in each place supported our stand against Abp. Lefebvre and his organization."
https://traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf
Here is Bishop Dolan, Bishop Sanborn, and Father Cekada talking about the disagreement:
https://truerestoration.org/season-2-clerical-conversations-episode-1-the-nine-30-years-on/
I wasn't raised in the SSPX. I was raised at an independent chapel, with a priest who sounded Sedevacantist even if he denied it later. For all intents and purposes, our chapel might as well have been. We used a 1940's era Missal too. Nice try though.
"If they had issues with the SSPX, they should have simply LEFT. Rather than suing the Archbishop for the SSPX name, trying to take away as many properties/priests/faithful as possible, etc "
So yeah, I'm not a hypocrite, speaking out of both sides of my mouth, etc. The very idea that +ABL was the "Bp. Fellay" of his time, or the SSPX was the "neo-SSPX of 1983" is COMPLETE BULLSHIT and not true at all. The idea is intellectually repugnant, far from "ringing true".No one is saying he was the Bishop Fellay of his time. But what the concerns of the Nine show (as clearly described in their Letter) is that things had already stated to change in the SSPX....in the early 1980's. In fact, I could have sworn that you and others at least recognized that truth when the Nine's Letter was trotted out here in the recent past.
No one is saying he was the Bishop Fellay of his time. But what the concerns of the Nine show (as clearly described in their Letter) is that things had already stated to change in the SSPX....in the early 1980's. In fact, I could have sworn that you and others at least recognized that truth when the Nine's Letter was trotted out here in the recent past.
Maybe others, but I didn't. I might have been uncomfortable to be placed in a superficially similar situation to the evil Nine -- but that's it.Mathew, +Lefebvre French priest assistants in 1983 were tipped off by snitches where my parents attended mass and refused to allow my confirmation. They said that the nine priests were liars. My parents didn't argue we just left. How does this jive with: 13 Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.
But if the world were ending and collapse were happening, would you be THAT bothered that you are "in the same boat" as those false prophets over the decades with cardboard signs saying "The End is Nigh"? No, because YOU WOULD BE CORRECT when you say the End is Nigh (with fire, rioting, war all around you, power and water are out almost everywhere, etc.) while those false prophets (who said The End is Nigh in the 80's) were wrong, period.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
You can't get excited when a broken clock reads "11:15" just because the current time happens to be 11:15. Because that clock has been claiming 11:15 constantly for the past week! See the problem?
Who says the Nine were vindicated? Because 20+ years later they were accidentally right, like a broken clock that is right twice a day?
That would be like me calling for a collapse/end of the world and eventually being right. Well yeah, eventually it's going to happen! But if you quit your job, call dates, etc. and are repeatedly wrong, sorry but you were just WRONG completely. Timing is part of a prediction.
The Nine said the SSPX *fell* past tense, and they were wrong. +ABL was still alive, for crying out loud! To use the "end of the world" analogy, they quit their jobs, maxed out their credit cards, etc. Would that be wise to do, 20 years before the event? You'd call such a person a fool. They'd end up on the street if they did that. Why should "resisting the SSPX" be any different?
When the Nine "resisted" in 1983, there was NOTHING TO RESIST.
Nothing to resist???
How about the fact of them being forced to give the sacraments to those who had NO marriage annulments? Or the fact that they were being forced to use the 1962 missal against their conscience? Or having NO ordained “priests” being allowed to celebrate mass at the same altars?
They saw then what you see now and you criticize now, but you fail to admit that that was the start of the problems with the SSPX. Also, the fact that the Archbishop seems to have been less hard nosed afterward and even collaborated with, the reportedly sedevacantist, Bishop de Castro Mayer, shows (among several other reasons) that maybe he had misgivings about the whole affair.
1. If they had issues with the SSPX, they should have simply LEFT. Rather than suing the Archbishop for the SSPX name, trying to take away as many properties/priests/faithful as possible, etc.
2. The conduct of the Nine post-expulsion is precisely what I have issue with. What they did was villainous and unfair to the Archbishop who only wanted to save Tradition and serve the Church.
Mathew, +Lefebvre French priest assistants in 1983 were tipped off by snitches where my parents attended mass and refused to allow my confirmation.
In more recent times, I had issues with some of their bullying with the Sacraments, where they used the threat of withholding Sacraments to ensure compliance with their theological opinions. They did a smear job against Archbishop Thuc. At one point, another member of The Nine told me that then-Father Kelly said of the Thuc bishops that "We can't say they're valid because then people might go to them." The Nine have been known to withhold Sacraments (in one case on a person's death bed) for being "Feenyite"s, but then had no issues being "in communion with" and giving Sacraments to Natalie White, who was herself a Feeneyite, because she was their access to Bishop Mendez.
You've obviously heard their arguments first. There's a very sane and reasonable answer to all those objections.
A superior general can't have chaos in the organization. Imagine if some SSPX chapels had the 1962 Missal and others used different older versions. And then, let's say you're happy with the version used at your chapel -- then a new priest moves in! Now the chapel changes what version is used. It would be chaos.
On a practical level, how can the people who were involved make amends for this evil (your word not mine, I don't understand all the details, nor want to, i just want to know what a resolution would look like) behavior. What can Bishop Sanborn, Father Berry, Father Zapp, Father McMahon, Fr Ahern, ect, do?
1. If they had issues with the SSPX, they should have simply LEFT. Rather than suing the Archbishop for the SSPX name, trying to take away as many properties/priests/faithful as possible, etc.
2. The conduct of the Nine post-expulsion is precisely what I have issue with. What they did was villainous and unfair to the Archbishop who only wanted to save Tradition and serve the Church.
And no, dying doesn't automatically make everything you did "good" or "Oh, it's ok, he's dead now, so it's all good." No, scandalous deeds still need to be criticized, for the sake of justice, and to right the wrongs that were committed! Some of these actions in the mid 80's had consequences which persist up to the present day.
So 4 of these Nine have passed before the judgment seat of God? So be it. God has judged them. But my place is to call out their publicly-known evils they participated in here on earth and fight against their legacy. I can only operate on the information I have regarding what is good and evil.
I don't care about their subjective guilt, because I'm not looking to judge them personally. I'm only in this for the truth and God's cause. And that cause was NOT served by Fr. Cekada & company's evil legal motions against the SSPX.
On a practical level, how can the people who were involved make amends for this evil (your word not mine, I don't understand all the details, nor want to, i just want to know what a resolution would look like) behavior. What can Bishop Sanborn, Father Berry, Father Zapp, Father McMahon, Fr Ahern, ect, do?
Unfortunately, what happened in the early 1980s is that Archbishop Lefebvre was in fact cozying up to Modernist Rome because Wojtyla had made some positive comments about Traditional Catholicism. It's from that same period, the early 1980s, that the neo-SSPX pull all the quotes from +Lefebvre that are favorable to their current orientation vs. that of the Resistance.
How about they apologize, for starters? Then we can talk.Who do they need to make that apology to? I am asking these questions because I would like walls to come down between the Trad groups. I am tired of seeing more walls go up and creating a maze that is almost impossible to solve. I have started praying to St. Anthony to find the Church.
Who do they need to make that apology to? I am asking these questions because I would like walls to come down between the Trad groups. I am tired of seeing more walls go up and creating a maze that is almost impossible to solve. I have started praying to St. Anthony to find the Church.
About St. Anthony finding the Church - where do you think that the Church is? Or where it might be?It just feels like we are all lost wandering around in the desert. We are now too many scattered sheep in a million different directions. I know we don't have a shepherd and this is the result. We do have basic Catholic principles that we CAN agree on.
It just feels like we are all lost wandering around in the desert. We are now too many scattered sheep in a million different directions. I know we don't have a shepherd and this is the result. We do have basic Catholic principles that we CAN agree on.
This quote John 13: 34 - 35
"34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." doesn't seem to apply anymore.
Do we actually love each other, now? Are we disciples of Christ? What Catholic group do we direct converts to? I think we have at least 3 different answers here.
I think you, me, and many others have movie-watcher's syndrome, audience syndrome, hindsight, whatever you want to call it.
And the annulments issue touches on the Crisis in the Church. If we don't respect the Marriage Tribunals of the Catholic Church, then whose Marriage Tribunals DO we respect? Because life goes on, including marriage (and marriage problems), during the Crisis in the Church. Humans are still humans. Humans are as fallible and slipshod as they come. Anything involving humans is GOING to have problems.
I'm not "blaming" Archbishop Lefebvre for his optimistic mindset in the early 1980s ... just pointing out that he was in that mindset when The Nine were expelled. Things were very much in a state of confusion, with the hope among some that Montini was a "one-off" and that things might return to normal under a Wojtyla. Within a few years, though, Assisi happened, and that more than anything showed everyone who Wojtyla was.
Maybe others, but I didn't. I might have been uncomfortable to be placed in a superficially similar situation to the evil Nine -- but that's it.Not all of the 9 were evil. They didn't all agree, and that's why they went their separate ways. Fr. Joseph Collins was good until the end. He only spoke well of Archbishop Lefebvre. May he rest in peace. The others are another matter.
But if the world were ending and collapse were happening, would you be THAT bothered that you are "in the same boat" as those false prophets over the decades with cardboard signs saying "The End is Nigh"? No, because YOU WOULD BE CORRECT when you say the End is Nigh (with fire, rioting, war all around you, power and water are out almost everywhere, etc.) while those false prophets (who said The End is Nigh in the 80's) were wrong, period.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
You can't get excited when a broken clock reads "11:15" just because the current time happens to be 11:15. Because that clock has been claiming 11:15 constantly for the past week! See the problem?
Not all of the 9 were evil. They didn't all agree, and that's why they went their separate ways. Fr. Joseph Collins was good until the end. He only spoke well of Archbishop Lefebvre. May he rest in peace. The others are another matter.
My understanding is that at least 70% of US annulments are for defect of form (marrying outside the church without a dispensation). Isn't the scandal caused by those contracting invalid marriages rather than the tribunals?
So now you consider the NO church synonymous with the Catholic Church? I thought that you considered it the Conciliar church?It looks like he is just following what the Nine said ABL's new policy was in 1983:
You actually trust that cesspool of a NO “tribunal”, that gives out annulments like candy, to resolve marriage cases? Sorry, but if you do, you really need to explain why you aren’t accepting the whole NO thing in total. 99% of these annulment cases could easily be resolved in the negative by my 12 year old son. No kidding and no exaggeration!
In other words, if you “respect” the NO Rota, why don’t you respect the new mass? Why do you have a problem with Vatican II, or ecuмenism, and the other facets of the NO church?
Mathew, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. This is what I was alluding to in my previous post about contradictions.
I’m not being rude or disrespectful, these are very serious and important questions you need to answer for yourself. You belittle the sedevacantist position and say it answers nothing, but in actuality these questions are almost completely resolved by sedevacantism.
My understanding is that at least 70% of US annulments are for defect of form (marrying outside the church without a dispensation). Isn't the scandal caused by those contracting invalid marriages rather than the tribunals?
It looks like he is just following what the Nine said ABL's new policy was in 1983:
The Society has recently enunciated a general policy whereby it would presume the validity of the new Church annulments without investigation. The only outcome of following such a policy will be serious public scandal, grave damage to family life and complicity with the new Church in its attack on the holy sacrament of Matrimony. In answer to an inquiry from a layman concerning the status of his second marriage (which we know to be invalid), the Secretary General of the Society responded as follows:
On behalf of His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre I thank you for your letter of July 23, to which he has given due attention. His Grace thinks that in spite of all, one should adhere to the decision taken by the Church. Although one may deplore that the Church declares marriages invalid too easily nowadays, we cannot affirm in a special case, without any serious reason, that a declaration of invalidity is not valid. Thus you may go on receiving the sacraments and have a Christian family life.
Since no investigation was made by Your Grace or by the Secretary General, and since no grounds for the conciliar annulment were mentioned in the original letter of inquiry, the meaning is clear both from the words and the context. And that meaning is that presumption is to be given in favor of the Conciliar Church's annulments until the contrary is proved. This is a tragic error, for the Conciliar Church has proved its contempt for the sacrament of Matrimony by its actions. Before the world the Church is held up to ridicule because of the annulment practices of the Conciliar Church, which are more contemptible than the actions taken against marriage by secular tribunals. The policy of the Society must be to presume the invalidity of all the Conciliar Church's annulments until it is proved by traditional Catholic standards that the marriage annulled was clearly invalid from the beginning. To deal with such serious and sacred things in any other manner attacks the sacrament, makes light of one of the most serious and involved processes of the Church, poses a danger to present marriages, is a scandal to people who suffer much because of their respect for the sacrament and most especially is a mockery of those who have lived out their lives in perfect chastity in loyalty to the doctrine of the indissolubility of Christian marriage.
But this concern was "evil".
Imagine if some SSPX chapels had the 1962 Missal and others used different older versions.Matthew, a diversity of editions for the liturgical books is exactly what the first General Chapter of the SSPX had agreed upon in the 1970s (I cannot remember the exact year). The chapter accepted thst whichever books were in customary use in a given location, those would continue to be used. The result -- continental Europe generally used the John XXIII books, whilst the Anglosphere generally used the Pius XII or Pius X/Benedict XV books.
I remember the Nine referred to as the Nervous Nine and the Nasty Nine in my area since they took most of the money and those of us who stayed with Msgr. Lefebvre has to start over with very little. The Nine got a church in the 1980s whilst we only got a new church two years ago.
Call me what you will, but in MY book that is NOT FAIR.Mathew's just war theory. Does he believe that peace can be established after the war and that the two warring parties could work in common with the same vision, the salvation of souls?
That chapel was started by Abp. Lefebvre and his group, and they did all the work building it up. THEY should get to keep it. If someone with a personal opinion (anti-Sede, choice of Missale, opinion on what to do about annulments during the Crisis, etc.) they are always free to leave -- and start over. The burden should be on THEM with the picky opinions.
Mathew's just war theory. Does he believe that peace can be established after the war and that the two warring parties could work in common with the same vision, the salvation of souls?From what I understand, the SSPX and SSPV priests assigned here flew into town on the same connector flight in the years immediately pre-COVID, and they got along civilly.
I have the same question. Any doubt surrounding SSPV sacraments?
At this point in the Battle between the Jews and the Remnant Catholic Church,
who cares about old SSPX & SSPV animosities?
The only question is, are SSPV Sacraments valid?
:popcorn:
I have the same question. Any doubt surrounding SSPV sacraments?
Dear Incredulous,
I don't think so.
And it seems the old talismanic word "sede-vacantist" the SSPX uses to label them... is losing it's mo-jo.
You've obviously heard their arguments first. There's a very sane and reasonable answer to all those objections.I'll agree with Matthew here. If you see the current situation between SGG and RCI, you can see what a mess it is. +Sanborn even bans Gothic-styled vestments for priests in his RCI group. :popcorn:
A superior general can't have chaos in the organization. Imagine if some SSPX chapels had the 1962 Missal and others used different older versions. And then, let's say you're happy with the version used at your chapel -- then a new priest moves in! Now the chapel changes what version is used. It would be chaos.
And the annulments issue touches on the Crisis in the Church. If we don't respect the Marriage Tribunals of the Catholic Church, then whose Marriage Tribunals DO we respect? Because life goes on, including marriage (and marriage problems), during the Crisis in the Church. Humans are still humans. Humans are as fallible and slipshod as they come. Anything involving humans is GOING to have problems.
It's not the job of a priest at a Trad chapel to play God. It's his job to shepherd this particular lost flock (sheep without a shepherd), bringing them the Mass and sacraments. But it's the responsibility of EACH INDIVIDUAL where they will go to Mass, what Missal they insist on, whether they're in the state of grace and fit to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, etc. But some priests put additional burdens on would-be communicants. See the problem?
God is God. He can take care of Himself. He doesn't need us to "protect Him", or withhold communion from this or that Trad Catholic. The Church is clear on this matter: unless a would-be communicant is a *public sinner*, the priest is to administer Communion. As for preventing sacrileges to this Holy Sacrament, public sinners are the only low-hanging fruit we're allowed to "pick" as it were. For the rest, God has decided that it will be on the conscience of each communicant. Read St. Paul -- he speaks about this very topic. 1 Corinthians chapter 11
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord
While I agree with Matthew that what the Nine did to ABL was nefarious, I can't help but notice that certain Resistance locations are following in the footsteps of the Nine when it comes to their fight against the SSPX on the topics of the liturgical books, tradcuмenism with sedevacantism, and civil lawsuits.Yes, it's very disappointing. How can they claim to be the true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre with this independent spirit?
+Sanborn even bans Gothic-styled vestments for priests in his RCI group.Msgr. Sanborn was vocally opposed to gothic vestments when he was rector of STAS before the split of the Nine.
No need to guess.
"The overwhelming majority of lay members in each place supported our stand against Abp. Lefebvre and his organization."
https://traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineVLefebvre.pdf
One of the last conversations I had with Father Collins was about his puzzlement, that if and when we obtained a true pope, how it was humanly possible for him (the pope) to straighten out this universal marriage mess.I don't know and maybe, somehow I completely missed this back in the day, but because it sounds like a lie to me, I would have to see this "general policy whereby it would presume the validity of the new Church annulments without investigation."
I don't know and maybe, somehow I completely missed this back in the day, but because it sounds like a lie to me, I would have to see this "general policy whereby it would presume the validity of the new Church annulments without investigation."This was one of the main issues for the Nine. Did the Archbishop ever make a statement saying it was not true? Or a clarification of the policy? I see he responded to the issue over JXXIII's Missal of 1962, but I can't find his response to the issue of conciliar annulments.
I know of at least one annulment a long time ago, maybe 20-30 years ago or so that was investigated, I do not know what the outcome was.
I started to read more about it. Interestingly enough, it was the Archbishop who wanted to sue initially. He had no interest in negotiating a settlement. In the end, that is what happened anyway.
It’s been a long time since I delved into what actually happened with those lawsuits
This was one of the main issues for the Nine. Did the Archbishop ever make a statement saying it was not true? Or a clarification of the policy? I see he responded to the issue over JXXIII's Missal of 1962, but I can't find his response to the issue of conciliar annulments.Same here, I never heard that about NO annulments until reading about it in this thread, which is why I would like to see that actual policy.
This was one of the main issues for the Nine. Did the Archbishop ever make a statement saying it was not true? Or a clarification of the policy? I see he responded to the issue over JXXIII's Missal of 1962, but I can't find his response to the issue of conciliar annulments.I just found this (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/legitimacy_and_status_of_our_tribunals.htm), which leads me to believe the annulment issue is simply bs:
He continued indicating that these commissions ought to start modestly, according to necessity, and should be a service to help priests resolve difficult cases in their ministry. The central reason for our marriage tribunals is, consequently, that they are necessary for the souls of our traditional faithful.Inasmuch as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecuмenism and modernism, and that their decision and the new law are as a whole influenced by these false principles, we must institute authorities to supply for these deficiencies, which faithfully adhere to the Catholic principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic law. It is the only way to remain faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles and to the deposit of the Faith, transmitted to their legitimate successors, who remained faithful until Vatican II.
Same here, I never heard that about NO annulments until reading about it in this thread, which is why I would like to see that actual policy.My point is that if it wasn't actual policy, then ABL would have contested it when it was asserted in the Letter in 1983. But there doesn't seem to be any comments made by him to the contrary.
I just found this (http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canonical/Canonical_Commission/legitimacy_and_status_of_our_tribunals.htm), which leads me to believe the annulment issue is simply bs:Dated 1991. After the Nine. Perhaps ABL saw the issue was valid and addressed it.
The declarations of nullity given by post-Conciliar ecclesiastical tribunals are often doubtful. Do we have the right to supply for this deficiency, by the means of tribunals functioning within the Society of St. Pius X?
Archbishop Lefebvre foresaw the necessity of creating a Canonical Commission, in particular in order to resolve marriage cases after an initial judgment by the district superior. The following text from a letter that he wrote to the Superior General on January 15, 1991, is quoted in the Society’s Regulations:He continued indicating that these commissions ought to start modestly, according to necessity, and should be a service to help priests resolve difficult cases in their ministry. The central reason for our marriage tribunals is, consequently, that they are necessary for the souls of our traditional faithful.
So where did this come from? "a general policy whereby it would presume the validity of the new Church annulments without investigation."
My point is that if it wasn't actual policy, then ABL would have contested it when it was asserted in the Letter in 1983. But there doesn't seem to be any comments made by him to the contrary.Right, because wherever that idea came from is bs per my previous post. IOW, I do not believe that NO annulments were ever part of the problem.
Dated 1991. After the Nine. Perhaps ABL saw the issue was valid and addressed it.True, that's a possibility - if it is, then +ABL did a 180 on the issue, but I believe the accusation is fabricated bs.
True, that's a possibility - if it is, then +ABL did a 180 on the issue, but I believe the accusation is fabricated bs.But if so, then certainly he would have shouted that from the housetops, no?
But if so, then certainly he would have shouted that from the housetops, no?Not if that was never an accusation. I am saying whoever said the Nine said that, that guy fabricated the accusation because they never said that. I could be wrong, maybe they did accuse +ABL of that, but first off, it makes zero sense - as long as I was there I never heard that was any policy, not ever, that idea is contrary to what I always understood was their policy, add to that, that policy does not make even a shred of sense.
Not if that was never an accusation. I am saying whoever said the Nine said that, that guy fabricated the accusation because they never said that. I could be wrong, maybe they did accuse +ABL of that, but first off, it makes zero sense - as long as I was there I never heard that was any policy, not ever, that idea is contrary to what I always understood was their policy, add to that, that policy does not make even a shred of sense.What are you talking about? It was one of the issues the Nine spoke of in their Letter of 1983 to the Archbishop. Have you even read it?
1) a priest who was not conditionally ordained (he had refused conditional ordination) being allowed to offer Mass at SSPX chapels,From an outsider looking in, I think point 1 is a legitimate, grave concern. We see the slippery slope has led the new-sspx to use "bishop" Huonder.
2) acceptance of Novus Ordo marriage annulments,
3) imposition of the 1962 Missal (these priests merely opposed being forced to use the 1962 Missal), and
4) suppression of the freedom to question the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.
What are you talking about? It was one of the issues the Nine spoke of in their Letter of 1983 to the Archbishop. Have you even read it?I stand corrected. Thank you.
From the Letter:
In answer to an inquiry from a layman concerning the status of his second marriage (which we know to be invalid), the Secretary General of the Society responded as follows:
On behalf of His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre I thank you for your letter of July 23, to which he has given due attention. His Grace thinks that in spite of all, one should adhere to the decision taken by the Church. Although one may deplore that the Church declares marriages invalid too easily nowadays, we cannot affirm in a special case, without any serious reason, that a declaration of invalidity is not valid. Thus you may go on receiving the sacraments and have a Christian family life.
Since no investigation was made by Your Grace or by the Secretary General, and since no grounds for the conciliar annulment were mentioned in the original letter of inquiry, the meaning is clear both from the words and the context. And that meaning is that presumption is to be given in favor of the Conciliar Church's annulments until the contrary is proved.
As far as I can see, the Archbishop never denied it nor countered it.
As I said, I agree with The Nine regarding the reasons they broke with SSPX, but I disagree with their methods. When Archbishop Lefebvre announced that they'd be expelled from the SSPX, he said that it was OK for them to hold their opinion, but they couldn't hold that opinion in the SSPX. To which Father Cekada countered something along the lines of, "That's fine, but we own the properties." They should have just left and this would have left them on the moral high ground. But the legal battles that followed were very unbecoming and really tarnished their position. I feel that the legal maneuvers were spearheaded by Father Cekada, and the others just followed along.And yet initially it was the Archbishop who wished to go forward with a suit. Yes, that is what Fr Cekada wrote in the link I provided in Page 1, but I see no official reaction to any of this from the Archbishop. Where can we find his reactions to the points in the Letter and the following lawsuits?
And yet initially it was the Archbishop who wished to go forward with a suit.
What was he supposed to do, just let them walk away with all the SSPX properties in the US?The lawyer was hoping for some sort of negotiation/settlement. He refused. So, was the ensuing lawsuits great? No. But let's stop pushing the idea that this was ALL the (Evil) Nine's fault.
The lawyer was hoping for some sort of negotiation/settlement. He refused. So, was the ensuing lawsuits great? No. But let's stop pushing the idea that this was ALL the (Evil) Nine's fault.
Ironically, while they argued that priests should have freedom where it came to certain matters not decided by the Church, and I agree with that, they themselves ended up imposing their theological opinions on the faithful by using the Sacraments as weapons. So they were not true to their core principles.Very, very true.
But let's stop pushing the idea that this was ALL the (Evil) Nine's fault.If they started the case (i.e. prosecuting side) and the sspx was the defending side, then yes...the Nine started the fight.
If they started the case (i.e. prosecuting side) and the sspx was the defending side, then yes...the Nine started the fight.Nope. The Archbishop filed the lawsuit.
Well, the lawsuits were their fault. They had been accuмulating properties under the auspices of the SSPX while (often) keeping the ownership in their names. That would akin to if I were a CMRI priest, presenting myself as a CMRI priest, but then buying a church building that had my name on the title. That's not something they should have done in the first place. They should have just walked away and started new chapels.Proof? It's my understanding that that was libel against them at the time.
Proof? It's my understanding that that was libel against them at the time.
Nope. The Archbishop filed the lawsuit.
Father Cekada admitted as much in the very meeting where they were expelled, saying to the Archbishop, "That's fine, but we own the properties." There was no libel there.Never saw that quote. Do you have a source/link?
Because The Nine had accuмulated many SSPX properties in their name.Still looking for a source that proves this is true.
We have to ask ourselves why these two priests involved in this particular resolution would want to have full power of attorney over every U.S. corporation of the Fraternity? It is reported and even admitted by the priests themselves that they have conveniently placed the property belonging to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society in their own names.
From the legal case ...Except the quote you gave was the false assertion made by the defendants, not an admission by the plaintiffs (the 4 of the 9). Here is more of what the legal case had to say:
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/806/806.F2d.44.85-7931.1490.html
We have to ask ourselves why these two priests involved in this particular resolution would want to have full power of attorney over every U.S. corporation of the Fraternity? It is reported and even admitted by the priests themselves that they have conveniently placed the property belonging to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society in their own names.
Where their charge of libel came from was due to the follow-on statement made by SSPX that they had thereby "sacked the Church", but there was never any question that the priests placed the properties in their own name. Father Cekada admitted it immediately after they were expelled: "Go ahead, but we own the properties"
So, the accusations are still not true. But thanks for the link to the case. How did you find it?
Of course they're true. Father Cekada admitted it. Why else did Lefebvre have to take them to court? If the properties were in the name of the SSPX, The Nine would not have gotten any of them. If you keep reading, it says that the libel entails accusing them of having "sacked the Church", as one of their chief contentions was that SSPX does not equal the Church.Yeah, you keep asserting he admitted they owned the properties with no actual source for your quote....despite the fact that Fr Cekada explains in his own writing I posted on page 1 that the properties were owned by not-for-profit corporations.
the properties were owned by not-for-profit corporations.All corporations have "board of directors" and people who are in control. The nine would have put their names on the board. Whoever is on the Board, controls the properties. Owns = controls.
All corporations have "board of directors" and people who are in control. The nine would have put their names on the board. Whoever is on the Board, controls the properties. Owns = controls.Prove that they did.
If the properties were in the name of the SSPX, The Nine would not have gotten any of them.If the sspx controlled the properties, there wouldn't have been any lawsuit.
In any event, in God’s providence, it was a great thing that the properties are not now in the hands of the neo SSPX.That certainly is the long and the short of it. Thanks for the reminder.
...so why say anything against the Nine, when it is obvious that very few here are going to agree that there was a problem with the Nine?I would hope, Meg, that none of us on this forum silences the truth for fear that some may disagree with it... This is the big problem with the "good" priests in the neo-SSPX - agreeing to be silent. It may well be that prudence sometimes dictates this course of action, but not when it comes to dangers to the Faith. When it comes to "The Nine", Archbishop Lefebvre considered it a danger and a scandal, which is why he took the measures that he did. Matthew allows sedes to air their views on this site. The least he can do is present the side of our beloved Archbishop, don't you agree? What would our Sedevacantist friends think of us if we did not... they might start to think they are right!!!
So....because the SSPX have themselves taken over properties, this means that it's fine that the Nine did the same thing. Just one example of strange Sede logic,(for the 2nd thread in a row)...if you had read the WHOLE THREAD, what you're saying is wrong. :facepalm:
When it comes to "The Nine", Archbishop Lefebvre considered it a danger and a scandal, which is why he took the measures that he did.
Unfortunately, with all due respect to +Lefebvre, I don't think this is true at all. When he made his case, his ostensible reason was to have some order and uniformity in the Society. I don't think he believed it to be a scandal or danger to question NO annulments or Holy Orders (he said it would be preferable if Stark would have consented to being conditionally ordained), nor did he think anything wrong about the pre-1955 Missal. But the unavoidable bottom line is that he was in fact cozying up to Rome at the time, making overtures to Wojtyla to allow the SSPX to make the "experiment of Tradition" in the Conciliar pantheon. He was extremely tolerant of sedevacantism in the 1970s, and then from about 1985 until his death. In the mid- to late- 1980s he believed that all NO Sacraments were doubtful (Sean Johnson cited him along those lines), and the SSPX themselves set up various tribunals to investigate various NO annulments.Below is the Archbishop's response at the time: "This radicalism is not the attitude of the Society" - it wasn't the attitude of ABL then and it never was, never! His doubts concerning the sacraments were for reasons different from 'The Nine':
I think we are just going to keep going back and forth. This all happened 40 years ago. What I want to know is how now can the 5 that are left make reparations? The SSPX has changed again, so most of the people here wouldn't expect them to make apologies to +Felay? Would a public apology suffice? Should they say if they went back they would do it differently, like taking the higher ground and starting over (as Ladislaus mentioned). Then we just enter in to another issue. Since some of the 9 have been made Bishops outside of +ABL then does +Zendejas or +Williamson need to conditionally consecrate them? Since we have no official authority per se, is it even possible that these bishops and priests start taking the higher ground to undo all the knots that have been created since Vatican II?I think we will have to wait for the return to Tradition of the Supreme Shepherd for such a miracle, and perhaps the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
I don't know. Just throwing thoughts out there.:confused:
In any event, in God’s providence, it was a great thing that the properties are not now in the hands of the neo SSPX.See QV, I look at it from another point of view.
See QV, I look at it from another point of view.Thought provoking take on things, Stubborn. Perhaps the USA would be a Catholic State now!
If they would never have split, (I am very biased for +Sanborn here), I believe +Sanborn would have been SG, maybe still the SG today. As such, there would be no neo SSPX, no Resistance, probably no FSSP, presumably none of the various splinter and various sede groups that were born from SSPX priests.
The SSPX would be what, two or three times the size it is now, maybe 10 or 50 times the size it is now, who is to say what blessings that would have wrought - had there been no split. I know that in those days, that was the plan, i.e. to keep ordaining priests. Too bad that division slammed the door on it.
That's the Providence that was hoped for. The Nine drove a wedge into it.
See QV, I look at it from another point of view.
If they would never have split, (I am very biased for +Sanborn here), I believe +Sanborn would have been SG, maybe still the SG today. As such, there would be no neo SSPX, no Resistance, probably no FSSP, presumably none of the various splinter and various sede groups that were born from SSPX priests.
The SSPX would be what, two or three times the size it is now, maybe 10 or 50 times the size it is now, who is to say what blessings that would have wrought - had there been no split. I know that in those days, that was the plan, i.e. to keep ordaining priests. Too bad that division slammed the door on it.
That's the Providence that was hoped for. The Nine drove a wedge into it.
The issues were concerning things that their conscience would’t allow them to compromise on. With all due respect to the Archbishop, he forced their hand.Although I understand what you're saying, what +ABL did was hand down what he received. What he received and handed down was rejected, and it was rejected whether due to a conflict of conscience or some other reason. Had they stayed, then they too could have continued to hand down what they had received. As it is, the question is, where did they receive that which they've been handing down?
Although I understand what you're saying, what +ABL did was hand down what he received. What he received and handed down was rejected, and it was rejected whether due to a conflict of conscience or some other reason. Had they stayed, then they too could have continued to hand down what they had received. As it is, the question is, where did they receive that which they've been handing down?He received the 1962 missal and Novus Ordo sacraments as much as he received Vatican II. It's the same authority behind it.
He received the 1962 missal and Novus Ordo sacraments as much as he received Vatican II. It's the same authority behind it.Yes, and we know this by the disunity it has wrought. :facepalm:
What ridiculous framing. Everyone knows sedevacantists are the ones passing on everything just as it was handed down before V2, Lefebvrites are the ones dropping things along the way.
The issues were concerning things that their conscience would’t allow them to compromise on. With all due respect to the Archbishop, he forced their hand.He didn't force their hand to be ordained priests of the SSPX. They stole the priesthood, their posts to SSPX priories/seminaries, all the while plotting to dictate terms to the Archbishop regarding the matters he refers to above that they had accepted while they were in the seminary... how convenient. Yet they knew better, just like the ones in 1977 when ABL lost almost his entire teaching staff at Econe who wanted the Archbishop to retire to a lovely house in Germany so they could take over and make their compromise with Rome on the New Mass and the Council in order to be able to legally say their Traditional Mass. He got rid of them all. The marriage 'issue' is nothing but a red herring.
He didn't force their hand to be ordained priests of the SSPX. They stole the priesthood, their posts to SSPX priories/seminaries, all the while plotting to dictate terms to the Archbishop regarding the matters he refers to above that they had accepted while they were in the seminary... how convenient. Yet they knew better, just like the ones in 1977 when ABL lost almost his entire teaching staff at Econe who wanted the Archbishop to retire to a lovely house in Germany so they could take over and make their compromise with Rome on the New Mass and the Council in order to be able to legally say their Traditional Mass. He got rid of them all. The marriage 'issue' is nothing but a red herring.It amounts to they wanted +ABL's SSPX to be a type of democracy where the priests had a type of authority to dictate certain ideas, to mandate their ideas into practice, and now that they have their own seminaries and priests, do you think they give their priests that same authority? I think not.
I think we are just going to keep going back and forth. This all happened 40 years ago.
They stole the priesthood ...
The marriage 'issue' is nothing but a red herring.
He received the 1962 missal and Novus Ordo sacramentsThese 2 things shouldn't be in the same sentence. The former is essentially the same (minus calendar changes) as the 1955 missal. The latter is a schismatic/heretical sacrilege. The 62 missal is not the problem.
True, and this brings to light the fact that many in the Resistance (and even some in the neo-SSPX) are having some of the same reservations about the neo-SSPX's acceptance of NO Holy Orders that The Nine did in the early 1980s. We have Resistance folks here impugning the use of Huonder for Holy Oils, confirmations, and the blessing of churches ... due to doubts about his Holy Orders, and we've had reports that some neo-SSPX priests have pushed back against using Huonder's oils. After The Nine left, the SSPX also ended up instituting various quasi-tribunals to evaluate various NO annulments ... which is basically what The Nine wanted. And then we have Resistance supporters such as SeanJohnson arguing strongly in favor of going back to the pre-1955 Missal. Aren't these the same points that The Nine were making? As I said, I'm not a fan of how they conducted themselves after the fallout, but in terms of the core principles, they were taking the same positions that many in the Resistance are taking now. And, in fact, in the early 1980s, you had +Lefebvre seeking some practical agreement with Rome, asking Modernist Rome to allow the SSPX to make the "experiment of Tradition", and many of the quotes that neo-SSPX use to back their position come from Archbishop Lefebvre in the early 1980s. As for the sedevacantism, as has been pointed out, that wasn't a key driver for The Nine, as some of them were not SV at the time of the split.And I fear splits will keep happening.
And I fear splits will keep happening.
Indeed. We see more clearly than ever how the papacy is the principle of unity in the Church, and that now, as Pope Leo XIII prophetically stated in his original exorcism prayer, when the shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered.
It amounts to they wanted +ABL's SSPX to be a type of democracy where the priests had a type of authority to dictate certain ideas, to mandate their ideas into practice, and now that they have their own seminaries and priests, do you think they give their priests that same authority? I think not.
The sedevacantists always have a pat answer for everything. They can never admit any wrongdoing. Any wrongdoing is always someone else's fault.
At that time, The Nine split off for many of the same reasons that The Resistance object to the neo-SSPX orientation. Only difference is that it was a temporary shift in +Lefebvre's thinking, and by 1985, he was solidly against any such cooperation with Rome ... whereas the neo-SSPX direction seems pretty set and not liable to change course, not to mention that the neo-SSPX have had the benefit of many extra decades of hindsight. When Wojtyla arrived, +Lefebvre and others hoped that perhaps Montini was a one-off and that things would return to more normalcy under Wojtyla. They realized after a few years that this was a misplaced hope.
Show me a good fruit of sedevacantism, and I'll show you a good fruit of the Traditional Movement.
That's like saying there's a "small difference" between walking off with $1,000 of your own money, and $1,000 of a poor widow's money. Talk about an understatement!
...
Back to +Lefebvre --
So he was trying to hope, while also having incomplete information about the depth and FUTURE length of the Crisis. You can't judge him the same as Bishop Fellay. Archbishop Lefebvre was just hopeful and optimistic, that this Crisis could be turned around. +Fellay on the other hand was maliciously ignoring 40 years of a FIRMLY ESTABLISHED NEW RELIGION, a NEW PERMANENT DIRECTION for the Conciliar Church.
That's a bit of a slippery standard, and potentially a double-edged sword. In fact, the neo-SSPX point out the debacles with Fr. Pfeiffer, Pfeifferville, and Fr. Hewko as examples of the bad fruits of the Resistance. SVs' good fruits are the same as that of most Trad clergy ... providing the Traditional Catholic Sacraments and exposure to the Catholic faith to the laity. There are good SV priests, and some not-so-good ones. There are some good R&R priests, and some not so good (CM exposed quite a few of the bad ones, and then there are Modernists like Fr. Paul Robinson floating around). Nobody is perfect or pure here.
in principle, the ISSUES that The Nine objected to in the early 1980s +Lefebvre very much align with those that the Resistance object to with neo-SSPX (at least some of the Resistance folks here on CI).
Ridiculous smear job and projection. Some of us objected to how The Nine conducted themselves after their split, but there are those in the R&R camp who think that +Lefebvre is impeccable and infallible, infallible both when he says A and when he later says NOT A. So both A and NOT A are true for the +Lefebvre cultists ... and thus the battle between some of them about which group is TRULY most loyal to +Lefebvre, because you can find quotes that The Resistance like and you can find quotes that the neo-SSPX like. What puts it all into context is to understand the chronology, where in the early 1980s, +Lefebvre was optimistic and very amenable to a practical agreement with Rome. At that time, The Nine split off for many of the same reasons that The Resistance object to the neo-SSPX orientation. Only difference is that it was a temporary shift in +Lefebvre's thinking, and by 1985, he was solidly against any such cooperation with Rome ... whereas the neo-SSPX direction seems pretty set and not liable to change course, not to mention that the neo-SSPX have had the benefit of many extra decades of hindsight. When Wojtyla arrived, +Lefebvre and others hoped that perhaps Montini was a one-off and that things would return to more normalcy under Wojtyla. They realized after a few years that this was a misplaced hope.^^This is one of those pat answers Meg mentioned.
Second, the SSPX was the Archbishop's to manage as he saw fit, which means the nine were pretty ridiculous to "resist him to his face" no matter what their reason. Thankfully +Sanborn's priests have yet to resist him to his face.Not so! If the SSPX were a congregation of common life without vows as Msgr. Lefebvre argued, the Society is governed by its constitutions and the juridical structures there established. A superior general is not a dictator; he works with other officers in managing according to the constitutions, the general chapters, and with the consultation of general council.
Not so! If the SSPX were a congregation of common life without vows as Msgr. Lefebvre argued, the Society is governed by its constitutions and the juridical structures there established. A superior general is not a dictator; he works with other officers in managing according to the constitutions, the general chapters, and with the consultation of general council.
If, however, the SSPX were mere a pious union (association of the faithful under the 83 Code), then...bah...everyone can do whaterever they wish within the bounds of civil, ecclesiastical, and moral law. I believe it was Fr. Cekada making the pious union argument who compared the SSPX to the Sacred Heart Auto League.
Nevertheless, it remains, the SSPX was not something for Msgr. Lefebvre to do with as he pleased.
I believe it was Fr. Cekada making the pious union argument who compared the SSPX to the Sacred Heart Auto League.What an extraordinary statement. Poor Fr Cekada if this is true, I thought he was more intelligent than that, so much so that I refuse to believe it, out of charity, unless I hear the words from his mouth.
^^This is one of those pat answers Meg mentioned.Very well said, Stubborn.
First, it gets old, very old to keep accusing us of thinking the +ABL was in any way impeccable or infallible. The whole idea is altogether absurd, not just to us, but to everyone - regardless of sede or R&R.
Second, the SSPX was the Archbishop's to manage as he saw fit, which means the nine were pretty ridiculous to "resist him to his face" no matter what their reason. Thankfully +Sanborn's priests have yet to resist him to his face.
Third, as you keep pointing out over and over and over, as it turned out, +ABL did something about the annulment issue, and also gave up hope for any cooperation with Rome. So there's two issues resolved, and had the Nine practiced patience and obedience and stuck to doing what they were ordained to do, right there is two less reasons to rebel against +ABL. But no, their stinking pride made them stand up and "resist him to his face," as if that was an act of holy nobility.
Fourth would have been the 1962 missal - I like to think that the Nine would have already accepted the reasons behind +ABL's use of it and tolerated it - or convinced +ABL to use the pre-1962 Missal - whatever. Anything rather than cause the scandal they did forcing +ABL to expel them.
My point is that the specific "accident" of sedevacantism hasn't added one iota of benefit to the plain vanilla Traditional Movement. We could list good fruits all day long from the Traditional Movement (not counting EXCEPTIONS due to bad priests -- bad men -- human beings -- sin is present wherever there are human beings).Well said, Matthew.
Souls are in heaven due to the Traditional Movement. Families exist. Children have been born. Countless good.
But none of that was from throwing darts at a picture of the Pope, calling Pope John Paul II "Wojtyla", or whatever the formal component of Sedevacantism entails, practically speaking. What IS the practical expression of Sedevacantism?
How would a "Sedevacantist Traditional Catholic" date look different from a "Traditional Catholic" date? That's why I keep using the imagery of throwing darts at a picture of the Pope. It's ridiculous, but so is sedevacantism if you think about it. Not the theological position per se, but making it an identity.
Sedevacantism shouldn't affect your primary identity, your personal pronoun, your choice of where to attend Mass (or where to AVOID Mass) or anything else.
But some priests have made the dubious/unlikely theological opinion of sedevacantism into a shibboleth, a sine qua non, a litmus test of Catholicity -- and an excuse to be home alone when there are plenty of good Masses available within a short driving distance. It's criminal.
What an extraordinary statement. Poor Fr Cekada if this is true, I thought he was more intelligent than that, so much so that I refuse to believe it, out of charity, unless I hear the words from his mouth.
A Simple Enrollment.
The actual engagement formula used by the SSPX when I joined was "I N.N. give my name into the Fraternity of St. Pius X.”
This language is merely an enrollment, and was completely consistent with the nature of a pious union: “I give my name” — call me for help teaching that CCD First Communion Class, put me on your list for collecting clothes and working in the St. Vincent de Paul soup kitchen.
Easy in, easy out — like joining the Sacred Heart Auto League.
According to Fr. Chazal, Francis is a heretic and must be avoided.Because it is not following Catholic principles. A theological opinion, perhaps.
We also know that heretics and apostates can not be pontiffs - along with women, the unbaptized, the insane and those under the age of reason.
Why is sedevacantism a shibboleth if it's merely following Catholic principles?
But some priests have made the dubious/unlikely theological opinion of sedevacantism into a shibboleth...
Because it is not following Catholic principles. A theological opinion, perhaps.No, you need to read what I posted again and correct your reasoning... There is no logic in your response to what I said. You avoided the issue.
prin·ci·ple
noun
- 1.
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=588105669&q=reasoning&si=ALGXSlb6hSjuI-stkeAspHuNXR7xS_c_OsP02Gs9R9lPbOpBPhFNcWG9ifNPFo-rNaGCkFZ4vyXMP1uvz4bbXhfOk4el90EFuOR6SvS6V3NoSgY9HzOxghM%3D&expnd=1)
Francis is a heretic. Heretics are barred from the papacy. You may disagree that Francis isn't a heretic, and that could be an opinion, but to say it doesn't follow principles? Yawn...
Because it is not following Catholic principles. A theological opinion, perhaps.You defined principle. You needed to define opinion. If we all stuck to certain Catholic principles we would not be in this mess.
prin·ci·ple
noun
- 1.
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=588105669&q=reasoning&si=ALGXSlb6hSjuI-stkeAspHuNXR7xS_c_OsP02Gs9R9lPbOpBPhFNcWG9ifNPFo-rNaGCkFZ4vyXMP1uvz4bbXhfOk4el90EFuOR6SvS6V3NoSgY9HzOxghM%3D&expnd=1)
Francis is a heretic. Heretics are barred from the papacy. You may disagree that Francis isn't a heretic, and that could be an opinion, but to say it doesn't follow principles? Yawn...
Regardless of Fr. Cekada's attitude, it seems folks are upset that according to its foundations the SSPX is essentially a pious union and not an actual religious order?Yes, that's correct. It was established as a pious union.
Because it is not following Catholic principles. A theological opinion, perhaps.A theological opinion is PRECISELY based on catholic principles. :facepalm: Doesn't mean the opinion is always correct, but it does have a foundation in catholic principles.
If we all stuck to certain Catholic principles we would not be in this mess.
Au contraire mon frère. We are in this mess precisely because the man you call pope is actively engaged in trying to destroy any and all Catholic principles over in 'the Conciliar Church'. I'd much rather attend the local Nervous Ordo but that is impossible for numerous reasons.Yes, you are referring to the larger mess! No I don't attend the NOM, I'm a Traditional Catholic. I refer you to chapters 3 and 4 of Open Letter to Confused Catholics: http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-3.htm
Are you attending your local Nervous Ordo? Why or why not?
Au contraire mon frère. We are in this mess precisely because the man you call pope is actively engaged in trying to destroy any and all Catholic principles over in 'the Conciliar Church'.While it is true that the conciliar popes are engaged in trying to destroy any and all Catholic principles, they could not come close to actually achieving the current level of success unless helped by *all* those who help(ed) them.
After the split of the nine Archbishop Lefebvre ordered that the 1962 rubrics would be used in the seminaries. He never demanded this in the priories and chapels. He himself in his private Masses said in Our Lady's chapel in Econe used the older missal and rubrics. In fact he never seriously learned the 1962 rubrics.Archbishop Lefebvre's conferences to the seminarians at Ridgefield 1982/83:
But if so, then certainly he would have shouted that from the housetops, no?A bit delayed, but you can read in these conferences to the seminarians (same link as above) what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say about the marriage annulment situation. The idea that he did not take it seriously, or that this issue could not have been resolved just does not wash:
Because it is not following Catholic principles. A theological opinion, perhaps.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
And, of course, Plenus here keeps dishonestly conflating the issues that The Nine had with "sedevacantism," even though not all of The Nine were actually sedevacantists, and it was not one of the key issues for The Nine. What were at issue are some of the very same principles that The Resistance criticize neo-SSPX for.Yes, except he isn't the only one. The change occurred a few pages back.
Yes, except he isn't the only one. The change occurred a few pages back.
Yes, that shift has occurred numerous times during this thread, and I try to call it out each time I see it. It's simply dishonest.Not to mention that it serves the purpose of diverting attention away from the real issues raised by the Nine.
While it is true that the conciliar popes are engaged in trying to destroy any and all Catholic principles, they could not come close to actually achieving the current level of success unless helped by *all* those who help(ed) them.
The point is, you should not place 100% of the blame on the conciliar popes because they were not in this alone, they in fact had/have plenty of help to do the job. But yes, the popes are guilty, but I think a point often ignored or forgotten and rarely, if ever, ever mentioned, is that *all* those who chose to follow the conciliar popes add(ed) to the destruction are also guilty - the degree of culpability is the only difference.
I do agree they've had help but would add that 'the buck stops here' (at the top - as in 'the apostasy begins at the top').It begins - (and should have ended) at the top. I was only wanting to point that out in my post. There is no way any pope could have done what has been done all by himself. Which is to say that while he's the ring leader, all those who've allowed themselves to be led astray are guilty too, along with him/them. If all those led astray all would have resisted as they should have, the crisis would have been over in nothing flat.
I responded to your message but it didn't show up in my sent box. Let me know if you don't get it and I'll try it again.
And, of course, Plenus here keeps dishonestly conflating the issues that The Nine had with "sedevacantism," even though not all of The Nine were actually sedevacantists, and it was not one of the key issues for The Nine. What were at issue are some of the very same principles that The Resistance criticize neo-SSPX for.I can say in my neck of the woods and throughout the SSPX, at least as far as SSPX friends other states knew of, what those Nine did was a terrible scandal, and that scandal was due to sedeism. At that time, "sedevacantism" was the new buzz word for everyone involved and that issue caused much controversy, disagreements, confusion, and over all much disquietude among the SSPX clergy and the faithful. So whereas you say sedeism played no part, I fully disagree because that was the #1 issue, sedeism was at the very veins of the whole episode whether you and the Nine say it was or not. It most certainly was. Feel free to ask any priest who was there and who and was not among the Nine, they will tell you what I just said.
I can say in my neck of the woods and throughout the SSPX, at least as far as SSPX friends other states knew of, what those Nine did was a terrible scandal, and that scandal was due to sedeism.
The 62 Missal was only in the back ground, as nobody in the pews could really tell the difference, even for the altar boys there was not much difference. The Nine rejected it because John XIII was not the pope, so he had no authority to impose that missal. Again, this is not something so critical as to cause the scandal. Neither was the annulment issue. Whatever you say, sedeism was the core issue.
What part of not all The Nine at the time were even sedevacantists don't you understand?
Core issues were 1) NO Holy Orders, 2) NO annulments, and 3) imposition of the 1962 Holy Week rites (the 1955 rites were introduced by someone they considered to be a legitimate pope). None of these issues is therefore tied to SVism.
Again, not all The Nine were even sedevacantists at the time, and many of them for many years even debated among themselves whether Roncalli was a non-pope, since he was a borderline figure.
Core issues were 1) NO Holy Orders, 2) NO annulments, and 3) imposition of the 1962 Holy Week rites (the 1955 rites were introduced by someone they considered to be a legitimate pope). None of these issues is therefore tied to SVism.Fr Wathen didn't have a problem with #3, the 1962 missal. But he did have a problem with #1 and #2 and he was not a sedevacantist.
I was a child at the time so I won't debate you on this point, but let's just say it couldn't have been for very long, nor were the debates very public or memorable. Because few Trads alive today remember it. Just look at how many in this thread make the "mistake" about the Nine = Sedevacantist. In fact, for decades now, "The Nine" have been synonymous with sedevacantism, much to your (and others') frustration. But it's an easy mistake, I say!
They quickly fell into the position they were leaning towards -- those who weren't sede from the outset.
Fr Wathen didn't have a problem with #3, the 1962 missal. But he did have a problem with #1 and #2 and he was not a sedevacantist.
Catholics should not have a democrat vs republican, my team vs your team, view on doctrine. Alas, that is the state of the world today. False binary, black-n-white thinking. The whole world has been brainwashed with such.
What part of not all The Nine at the time were even sedevacantists don't you understand?All of the issues are delineated in their Letter to ABL. If people would actually read it, they would see that none of them involved the legitimacy of the pope.
Core issues were 1) NO Holy Orders, 2) NO annulments, and 3) imposition of the 1962 Holy Week rites (the 1955 rites were introduced by someone they considered to be a legitimate pope). None of these issues is therefore tied to SVism.
All of the issues are delineated in their Letter to ABL. If people would actually read it, they would see that none of them involved the legitimacy of the pope.Wow. Who changed the title? I would say that clerics suing clerics was the scandal. It set the tone for future disunity amongst the faithful.
Docuмent2 (traditionalmass.org)
(https://traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineLetter.pdf)
I didn't, so I'm not sure why you quoted me, Gunter.Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that you did. It seemed like a dialing down of the inflammatory title which seemed like progress.
Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that you did. It seemed a dialing down of the inflammatory title which seemed like progress.No problem. It's back to the earlier title though, so I'm not sure what is going on.
But their rejection of the 1962 Missale would also suggest that they believe that Vatican II was so bad, no Pope could live with it, resulting in the conclusion that John XXIII and onward were not popes, so we can't use the 1962 Missale which was promulgated under this "antipope's" watch.Well....let's see what they actually said in the Letter:
Why else would they reject the 1962? Unless they're trying to go back "before the antipopes". Because the 1962 is practically the same as the Missale versions the sedevacantists and the Nine normally use.
No problem. It's back to the earlier title though, so I'm not sure what is going on.
Don't all those things pretty much require sedevacantism? I mean it takes a certain *absolute* position regarding the non-Catholicity of the Conciliar Church and the Papacy of the Pope, to reject the official marriage tribunals, validity of all Novus priests, etc.Well said.
But their rejection of the 1962 Missale would also suggest that they believe that Vatican II was so bad, no Pope could live with it, resulting in the conclusion that John XXIII and onward were not popes, so we can't use the 1962 Missale which was promulgated under this "antipope's" watch.
Why else would they reject the 1962? Unless they're trying to go back "before the antipopes". Because the 1962 is practically the same as the Missale versions the sedevacantists and the Nine normally use.
So yes, I hear you that TECHNICALLY they weren't Sedevacantist at the time of the rupture, they "only" made issue with 3 points that are dear to all Sedes from 1970 to the present day.
And to prove that I'm right about this, let's review how many of the Nine became formally Sedevacantist. 100%? I rest my case.
They were either Sedevacantist, sedevacantist leaning, or sedevacantist but didn't know it yet.
Well....let's see what they actually said in the Letter:
Of late, however, an attempt has been made to force all the priests and seminarians in the United States to accept the liturgical reforms of Pope John XXIII on the grounds of uniformity and loyalty to the Society
Well....let's see what they actually said in the Letter:
For though the power of a pope is very great, it is neither arbitrary nor unrestricted. "The pope," as Cardinal Hergenroether once said, "is circuмscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficial use of the duties attached to his privileges.... He is also circuмscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy—to 'feed'— ...." (Quoted in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), vol. XII, “Pope,” pp. 269-270) Thus obedience in matters liturgical belongs to a religious superior only insofar as what he demands is demanded by the Church and the legitimate demands of a Roman Pontiff.
All of the issues are delineated in their Letter to ABL. If people would actually read it, they would see that none of them involved the legitimacy of the pope.
Docuмent2 (traditionalmass.org)
(https://traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NineLetter.pdf)
The English words of the form in the New Rite of ordination so differ from the ones Pius XII said were essential for validity that they introduce a positive doubt as to its validity. In fact the doubt is not negative, but positive enough even in your own mind, Your Grace, so as to justify the conditional ordination of priests ordained in the New Rite. And so you have in fact conditionally ordained at least two priests in America: Father Sullivan and Father [. . .]. Indeed, you even asked Rev. Philip Stark to accept conditional ordination and he, as you yourself told us, adamantly refused And yet, after his refusal, you nevertheless allowed and continue to allow him to work with the Society; and he is not the only doubtfully ordained priest that you permit to do so — he is one of many.
So they rejected the 1962 Missal because they held that Roncalli was not the pope, eh, Stubborn?There are quotes out there from the SSPX and from +ABL confirming this, I had some of them saved but for a long time the links don't work anymore. Probably still out there somewhere.
There are quotes out there from the SSPX and from +ABL confirming this, I had some of them saved but for a long time the links don't work anymore. Probably still out there somewhere.
Despite what the SSPX narrative was, and your repeated claims, it's clear from this letter from The Nine that they did NOT reject the 1962 Missal on the grounds that Roncalli was a non-pope. They clearly refer to him as POPE John XXIII in the letter, uphold R&R principles that John XXIII had exceeded his authority in tampering with the Rite, and say they reject it because it was clearly the beginning of the "reforms" that led to NOM, citing John XXIII's own words that it was a temporary change pending the outcome of V2. Whatever narrative the SSPX might have been spinning, there's not a hint anywhere of rejecting the 1962 Missal because John XXIII was not the pope, but they call him the Pope and claim that he was exceeding the limits of his authority (R&R principle).Again, if those sympathetic with the SSPX keeps the anti-sede narrative going, then most readers won't pay any attention to the real issues the Nine had with ABL's changing policies nor bother to read their Letter describing them. It's quite strategic.
Unfortunately for you, whatever "quotes from the SSPX" you have in mind are contradicted by evidence here of what The Nine actually said. I was told by a couple of The Nine that a few of them were not sedevacantists, and that the issue was not at the forefront of their minds, which is confirmed by the fact that not only isn't it even mentioned explicitly in their letter to +Lefebvre, it isn't even hinted at ... but rather contradicted by their reference to John XXIII as "Pope".
Despite what the SSPX narrative was, and your repeated claims, it's clear from this letter from The Nine that they did NOT reject the 1962 Missal on the grounds that Roncalli was a non-pope. They clearly refer to him as POPE John XXIII in the letter, uphold R&R principles that John XXIII had exceeded his authority in tampering with the Rite, and say they reject it because it was clearly the beginning of the "reforms" that led to NOM, citing John XXIII's own words that it was a temporary change pending the outcome of V2. Whatever narrative the SSPX might have been spinning, there's not a hint anywhere of rejecting the 1962 Missal because John XXIII was not the pope, but they call him the Pope and claim that he was exceeding the limits of his authority (R&R principle).Matthew's post that I replied to explained the situation very well. But as I said, you can keep quoting The Nine all you want. The fact remains that had they just done what they were ordained to do in this crisis, there would have been no split, no scandal, likely even no sedeism - if they would have just stuck to doing what they were ordained to do.
Unfortunately for you, whatever "quotes from the SSPX" you have in mind are contradicted by evidence here of what The Nine actually said. I was told by a couple of The Nine that a few of them were not sedevacantists, and that the issue was not at the forefront of their minds, which is confirmed by the fact that not only isn't it even mentioned explicitly in their letter to +Lefebvre, it isn't even hinted at ... but rather contradicted by their reference to John XXIII as "Pope".
Matthew's post that I replied to explained the situation very well. But as I said, you can keep quoting The Nine all you want. The fact remains that had they just done what they were ordained to do in this crisis, there would have been no split, no scandal, likely even no sedeism - if they would have just stuck to doing what they were ordained to do.What were they "ordained to do"?
What were they "ordained to do"?"...It was to take care of the people whom God sent them as best they could, say their prayers faithfully, study and pray that they might not themselves fall victim to the spirit of Liberalism and worldliness, and keep their torment and speculations to themselves. The hierarchical structure of the Church and the papacy are not their business. Such high matters are the province of none other than Christ Himself and His Mother and the Apostles." - Who Shall Ascend?
"...It was to take care of the people whom God sent them as best they could, say their prayers faithfully, study and pray that they might not themselves fall victim to the spirit of Liberalism and worldliness, and keep their torment and speculations to themselves. The hierarchical structure of the Church and the papacy are not their business. Such high matters are the province of none other than Christ Himself and His Mother and the Apostles." - Who Shall Ascend?So, according to Fr Wathen.
So, according to Fr Wathen.They were wrong. And because they did not stop at addressing them, they were wrong. And by "resisting him to his face," they were wrong.
Priests are ordained by the Church to save souls. These nine priests believed that the changing policies of ABL in the Society hampered their ability to save souls in the Church. So, by addressing them, they were doing what they were ordained to do.
They were wrong. And because they did not stop at addressing them, they were wrong. And by "resisting him to his face," they were wrong.In your opinion.
The split between the Nine and the sspx was caused by both sides wanting things their way.
In your opinion.Well, if we go by what we see, which is the SSPX is still ordaining priests the right way, still celebrating Mass the right way, still administering the sacraments, counseling, instructing, preaching and on on, same as before, during and after "the Nine," it pretty much makes the whole thing superfluous. What did they accomplish?
Well, if we go by what we see, which is the SSPX is still ordaining priests the right way, still celebrating Mass the right way, still administering the sacraments, counseling, instructing, preaching and on on, same as before, during and after "the Nine," it pretty much makes the whole thing superfluous. What did they accomplish?
"ordaining priests the right way" - Yes, they do, but they accept priests that were not ordained the right way.
The SSPX has always accepted Novus Ordo priests to join the SSPX. Always and since the beginning. Sometimes they are conditionally ordained, and sometimes not. Why did any of the Nine join the SSPX in the first place (seminary), when they surely knew that this is how the SSPX did, and still does things?I don't believe that things were so clear back them. Plus, this is probably the kind of thing that you only get to know when it happens to you. I mean, they probably had not even considered that Apb. Lefebvre would accept doubtful priets before they were forced to deal with one in their district.
Perhaps they just needed a variety of excuses to leave the SSPX and take properties and faithful with them, after they were able to secure their own ordination.
I don't believe that things were so clear back them. Plus, this is probably the kind of thing that you only get to know when it happens to you. I mean, they probably had not even considered that Apb. Lefebvre would accept doubtful priets before they were forced to deal with one in their district.
As far a reordaining a Novus Ordo priest who wants to join the SSPX, the SSPX has always judged it the same way. Research into how the prospective priest was ordained is thoroughly done. Those of us who have attended SSPX chapels for a long time, and who know the history of the SSPX will affirm this. I can't believe that the Nine would not have known this prior to them joining the SSPX seminary. They must have known. And yet they complained about it after their ordination, and not before.Most of the “nine” didn’t join in the 80s. Remember the split was in ‘83. Bishop Clarence Kelly, for example, joined the SSPX in 1971- Fr. Cekada in 1975 after being a Cistercian. Bishop Dolan had a similar beginning with the SSPX as well. Many held positions of authority in the US district also.
Most of the “nine” didn’t join in the 80s. Remember the split was in ‘83. Bishop Clarence Kelly, for example, joined the SSPX in 1971- Fr. Cekada in 1975 after being a Cistercian. Bishop Dolan had a similar beginning with the SSPX as well. Many held positions of authority in the US district also.
I don’t think that after only a few years of existence (of the SSPX) or less that these priests would have been able to know all the positions and situations of the SSPX and plan to join them just “to get ordained”. It would be very rash and imprudent to publicly accuse them of this. When people joined the SSPX in the early ‘70s it was mostly because they saw it as the only organization where they could have the integral Catholic Faith. To state anything different is disingenuous.
"ordaining priests the right way" - Yes, they do, but they accept priests that were not ordained the right way.Yes, yes, we all know the problems the SSPX has. I was merely pointing out that the reason the nine were expelled turned out to be for nothing at all. The whole scandalous mess accomplished division, that's "the Nine's" only claim to fame.
"preaching and on on, same as before" - Not really.
"What did they accomplish?" - If nothing else, they have congregations that work without doubtful sacraments. And that is a lot, considering the situation we live in.
I was merely pointing out that the reason the nine were expelled turned out to be for nothing at all.The expelling of the Nine didn't change the sspx (or at least, not measurably. It might have intangibly helped +ABL to wake up the new-rome. Hard to say.). But the Nine certainly changed/helped Tradition. American Tradition would be much, much smaller had the Nine not left.
Most of the “nine” didn’t join in the 80s. Remember the split was in ‘83. Bishop Clarence Kelly, for example, joined the SSPX in 1971- Fr. Cekada in 1975 after being a Cistercian. Bishop Dolan had a similar beginning with the SSPX as well. Many held positions of authority in the US district also.
I don’t think that after only a few years of existence (of the SSPX) or less that these priests would have been able to know all the positions and situations of the SSPX and plan to join them just “to get ordained”. It would be very rash and imprudent to publicly accuse them of this. When people joined the SSPX in the early ‘70s it was mostly because they saw it as the only organization where they could have the integral Catholic Faith. To state anything different is disingenuous.
I don't believe that things were so clear back them. Plus, this is probably the kind of thing that you only get to know when it happens to you. I mean, they probably had not even considered that Apb. Lefebvre would accept doubtful priets before they were forced to deal with one in their district.
Most of the “nine” didn’t join in the 80s. Remember the split was in ‘83. Bishop Clarence Kelly, for example, joined the SSPX in 1971- Fr. Cekada in 1975 after being a Cistercian. Bishop Dolan had a similar beginning with the SSPX as well. Many held positions of authority in the US district also.
I don’t think that after only a few years of existence (of the SSPX) or less that these priests would have been able to know all the positions and situations of the SSPX and plan to join them just “to get ordained”. It would be very rash and imprudent to publicly accuse them of this. When people joined the SSPX in the early ‘70s it was mostly because they saw it as the only organization where they could have the integral Catholic Faith. To state anything different is disingenuous.
Have the Nine ever taken in new-rite bishops/priests without conditional sacraments? To my knowledge, they have not..
The expelling of the Nine didn't change the sspx (or at least, not measurably. It might have intangibly helped +ABL to wake up the new-rome. Hard to say.). But the Nine certainly changed/helped Tradition. American Tradition would be much, much smaller had the Nine not left.Helped tradition? Much, much smaller? You don't have a clue what you're talking about here, the chapels were growing like crazy, people all over were asking them to send a priest and to start more chapels all over the country - until the scandal, which almost killed the whole SSPX, which at the time was nearly the whole of tradition. The scandal drove many good families into home alone and back into the NO and was the cause of much division and strife among the faithful. Much, much smaller? No way. It's a major reason you can only find a very, very few SSPXers who were around in those days.
As the letter from The Nine pointed out, the practice of SSPX under +Lefebvre HAD been to conditionally ordain priests coming over from the NO. Even in the case of the infamous Mr. Stark, +Lefebvre had initially requested that he be conditionally ordained, but Stark refused, which is where +Lefebvre relented. There's a lot of UNWRITTEN stuff in SSPX, where they don't have a lot of explicit rules one way or the other, but where the rules were inferred from their general practices, information conversations, etc.Which is another interesting thing.
+ABL's policy was always the same.Not true, as Ladislaus has already explained.
The scandal drove many good families into home alone and back into the NO and was the cause of much division and strife among the faithful. Much, much smaller? No way.Short term, it was a disaster. Long term, Tradition grew because of it.
Short term, it was a disaster. Long term, Tradition grew because of it.:facepalm:
Not true, as Ladislaus has already explained.
Ladislaus is not telling the truth. Why do sedevacantists get away with this on this forum?
The scandal drove many good families into home alone and back into the NO and was the cause of much division and strife among the faithful. Much, much smaller? No way.The number of men who were asked to leave/left from sspx seminaries, who eventually got ordained through some operation of these Nine, is not small.
Ladislaus is not telling the truth.Prove it.
Stark was desobedient, but he had no punishment.How was Stark disobedient? He was never a member of the SSPX. He was a Jesuit who sought to work with the SSPX. He could be accused of being imprudent for refusing conditional ordination, but he was not disobedient.
Short term, it was a disaster. Long term, Tradition grew because of it.Pax, do you think Tradition grew with the introduction of the Resisitance? I tend to agree with your claim. I think that with every other split there is an initial stall of growth but within a few years it would bounce back even stronger. However, you will have to discount the influence of the Covid Catholics to understand if it did growth.
It doesn't matter when they joined. +ABL's policy was always the same.Calm down and take a deep breath. I attend Mass every Sunday with the SSPX. I just simply state that to accuse a priest of joining the SSPX in 1971 with evil intent of becoming a sedevacantist and just joining to get ordination and ignoring Archbishop Lefebvre's policy is very incorrect thinking. I'm pretty sure that there were no sedevacantists in 1971 and the Society itself was only a year old and had not clearly defined its policy. Maybe Fr. Saens y Arriaga had written his book on sedevacantism a few years later and it is very doubtful that any of the nine had read it. 1971 is just too early to say that priests joined the SSPX in order to just get ordination and not agree with the SSPX. It's pretty clear from their writings at the time that they all agreed with the position of the SSPX. We are talking about rectors and district superiors. Any rational thinking person would agree that it is a bit aloof to accuse these priests of bad intent and a disregard for SSPX policy as early as 1971.
So, according to you, it's rash judgment to accuse them of knowing full well +ABL's policy before they joined the SSPX. That's a double standard, which sedevacantists are known for.
It's fine for the sedes to judge, well, everyone else; but God forbid that anyone accuses God's Chosen People (sedevacantists) of any wrongdoing. Sedevacantists believe that they are above any judgment whatsoever. It reminds me of the elitist Jєωs who believe the same thing.
There was never a problem with priests using the older rite in the SSPX. It was only that The Nine made an issue of it.
Calm down and take a deep breath.
...
Seems that there is a lot of really hurt feelings regarding sedevacantism.
Despite what the SSPX narrative was, and your repeated claims, it's clear from this letter from The Nine that they did NOT reject the 1962 Missal on the grounds that Roncalli was a non-pope. They clearly refer to him as POPE John XXIII in the letter, uphold R&R principles that John XXIII had exceeded his authority in tampering with the Rite, and say they reject it because it was clearly the beginning of the "reforms" that led to NOM, citing John XXIII's own words that it was a temporary change pending the outcome of V2. Whatever narrative the SSPX might have been spinning, there's not a hint anywhere of rejecting the 1962 Missal because John XXIII was not the pope, but they call him the Pope and claim that he was exceeding the limits of his authority (R&R principle).The letter from The Nine, is what Lad is referring to above which was sent to +ABL in 1983. The sermon below is from only a year, maybe two years later and demonstrates the truth of what what Matthew said: "They were either Sedevacantist, sedevacantist leaning, or sedevacantist but didn't know it yet." For me, I would say for certain that the then Fr. Sanborn was sede, but didn't advertise it as such.
Unfortunately for you, whatever "quotes from the SSPX" you have in mind are contradicted by evidence here of what The Nine actually said. I was told by a couple of The Nine that a few of them were not sedevacantists, and that the issue was not at the forefront of their minds, which is confirmed by the fact that not only isn't it even mentioned explicitly in their letter to +Lefebvre, it isn't even hinted at ... but rather contradicted by their reference to John XXIII as "Pope".Matthew's post that I replied to explained the situation very well. But as I said, you can keep quoting The Nine all you want. The fact remains that had they just done what they were ordained to do in this crisis, there would have been no split, no scandal, likely even no sedeism - if they would have just stuck to doing what they were ordained to do.
The number of men who were asked to leave/left from sspx seminaries, who eventually got ordained through some operation of these Nine, is not small.Yes, God allowed it, and really I think for reasons known only to Him. But you miss the forest Pax.
I'm not saying the split was a good thing, but God used evil events to bring about good works. He allowed the split to happen and (in the moment) it was not good. But hindsight shows it was good for Tradition overall.
You have this reversed. There was never a problem until at one point the Archbishop decided to impose it at the seminary.And he explained why. After that, there was no reason to not use it and very good reason to use it.
And he explained why. After that, there was no reason to not use it and very good reason to use it.In thee Archbishop's last interview he instructed all the faithful both clergy and laity when an agreement could be made. It centered around the rejecting vatican II errors and maintaining the traditional rites.
And yet this CMRI nun was sedevacantist from well before 1985:
The letter from The Nine, is what Lad is referring to above which was sent to +ABL in 1983. The sermon below is from only a year, maybe two years later and demonstrates the truth of what what Matthew said: "They were either Sedevacantist, sedevacantist leaning, or sedevacantist but didn't know it yet." For me, I would say for certain that the then Fr. Sanborn was sede, but didn't advertise it as such.
In the below sermon, from about the 2:15 mark, Fr. is explaining sedeism, what it is and why it is. At the time it was only a new idea, a novelty.
Seems that there is a lot of really hurt feelings regarding sedevacantism. Due to the high flowing emotions and seeming hatred for practicing Catholics who simply maintain a different outlook on the crisis, I'll refrain from commenting on this thread. I just want to leave saying that sedevacantists themselves are not the supreme enemy here.
Ladislaus just posted a clear syllogism about the Pope question. But just FYI, I could post an equally compelling syllogism which "forces" you to conclude AGAINST sedevacantism. Heck, let's do it.
MAJOR: Christ made a promise that St. Peter would have perpetual successors.
MINOR: There have been several popes since 1958, albeit rejected by a tiny minority (sedevacantists).
CONCLUSION: These were valid popes.
What about normal interregna, which have regularly lasted months and years? Does that undermine "perpetual succession"? Obviously not. Then what does "perpetual succession" mean if it admits of gaps. At that point, then, how long a gap is possible? We've had a few years in the past. What's the cutoff? 5 years? 10 years? 17 years 6 months 5 days 10 hours, 23 minutes, and 15 seconds? Father Edmund Oreilly, S.J., held (IMO rightly) that a vacancy lasting the entire duration of the Great Western Schism (40 years) would not have been incompatible with the promises of Christ.
That's the weakness in this syllogism, the lack of explanation for what perpetual succession means.
Hence a distinction arises between the seat and the one sitting in it in the matter of perpetuity. The seat, that is, the perpetual right of primacy - owing to God in His unchangeable law and supernatural providence, and owing to the Church in her right and duty of forever keeping as a deposit the power divinely instituted for the individual successors of Peter and of procuring theri succession by a firm law - never ceases. But the individual heirs or those sitting in the Apostolic seat are mortal men, and so the seat can never fail, but it can be vacant, and is often vacant. Even at that time there indeed remain the divine law and institution of perpetuity ...
I understand what you're saying, and you have a point, but I think we can all agree 65 years is too long. It's common sense.
Even Fr. Oreilly's 40 year hypothetical interregnum has been dwarfed by the current 65 years. And his opinion was just the opinion of one priest to begin with; hardly anything definitive.
I understand what you're saying, and you have a point, but I think we can all agree 65 years is too long. It's common sense.
Even Fr. Oreilly's 40 year hypothetical interregnum has been dwarfed by the current 65 years. And his opinion was just the opinion of one priest to begin with; hardly anything definitive.
That's why I keep saying "this isn't the 1980's". The Sede position was much more attractive and much more likely back then. The Sedevacantist position ages like milk. It gets more untenable and improbable with every passing year. When will Sedes give it up and admit they bet on the wrong horse? When we have 100 years of interregnum? 200 years?
Meanwhile the +Lefebvre position, the "it's a mystery, so we'll just have to assume they hold the Papacy in some way for now, at the very least we don't have the authority to depose these Popes or declare them deposed" position ages like wine.
I think we can all agree 65 years is too long. It's common sense.
And 65 years of errors from the supposed Vicar of Christ is so much better. :(
No better, but certainly no worse.Error being promulgated to the Church from the supposed Vicar of Christ is absolutely worse than the Chair being vacant. The Chair being vacant at least doesn't attack the papacy.
Error being promulgated to the Church from the supposed Vicar of Christ is absolutely worse than the Chair being vacant. The Chair being vacant at least doesn't attack the papacy.That's a matter of opinion. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
And yet this CMRI nun was sedevacantist from well before 1985:Were you a trad in 1985? If you were, then you know that at that time, sedeism was a novelty - even to the Dimonds.
Yes, God allowed it, and really I think for reasons known only to Him. But you miss the forest Pax.If not for the sede movement (agree or disagree with sede-ism, i'm simply talking about the # of priests chapels they've produced), then every single Trad would be holding their breath, and praying white-knuckle that the new-sspx won't keep selling out to new-rome. But, barring an intervention from God, the new-sspx is toast. +Fellay will keep introducing new-rite/fake bishops/priests, keep cozying up to novus ordo diocese clerics, etc.
Were you a trad in 1985? If you were, then you know that at that time, sedeism was a novelty - even to the Dimonds.No, but Sister Mary Bernadette of the CMRI was for almost 2 decades. She was a traditionalist as early as 1967 and by 1970 she and others believed that Paul VI was not a true pope. So, although "sedevacantism" may not have been coined, it was definitely in the Traditional Movement as early as the late 60's.
No, but Sister Mary Bernadette of the CMRI was for almost 2 decades. She was a traditionalist as early as 1967 and by 1970 she and others believed that Paul VI was not a true pope. So, although "sedevacantism" may not have been coined, it was definitely in the Traditional Movement as early as the late 60's.Yes, I know it was around, few and far between tho they were, mostly they were the original home aloners but they never coined the term. Not sure who coined it, but by the early 80s someone did. I knew some home aloners, sad situation that.
1. ...decided that he needed to explain to his congregation something that they most likely either never heard of... The reason he even talked about it was as he explained - because the novel idea was spreading among priests and laypeople.
2. ...The reason it was a novel idea because it is found nowhere in tradition.
1. Makes perfect sense that no one had ever heard of it as the Church is protected in her faith, laws, disciplines, etc., and you have (now canonized) popes spreading the foulest of errors far and wide, on a regular basis ('chronic').1. Regardless of who the ones are spreading error and who the ones are hungrily eating them up, the idea itself was a novel idea because it is not found in Church tradition. It is that respect that it still is a novel idea.
2. Precisely why it's called 'the Great Apostasy' - which 'begins at the top'.
1. Regardless of who the ones are spreading error and who the ones are hungrily eating them up, the idea itself was a novel idea because it is not found in Church tradition. It is that respect that it still is a novel idea.
2. The Great Apostasy could happen a billion different ways, but could never happen without the aid of and involving a multitude of people sinning, iow, teamwork in evil is required.
Some might say, though not on this forum of course, that sedevacantism was founded by a pedophile. His name was Francis Schuckardt. I believe that he was already practicing sedevacantism in the 1960's, in Washington state.
But of course it's the SSPX who are the bad guys, and always have been. At least the founder of the SSPX wasn't a pedophile.
Some might say, though not on this forum of course, that sedevacantism was founded by a pedophile. His name was Francis Schuckardt. I believe that he was already practicing sedevacantism in the 1960's, in Washington state.
But of course it's the SSPX who are the bad guys, and always have been. At least the founder of the SSPX wasn't a pedophile.
Some might say, though not on this forum of course, that sedevacantism was founded by a pedophile. His name was Francis Schuckardt. I believe that he was already practicing sedevacantism in the 1960's, in Washington state.
But of course it's the SSPX who are the bad guys, and always have been. At least the founder of the SSPX wasn't a pedophile.
You make it sound like sedevacantism is some kind of witchcraft.Meg really knows how to bring out the worst in people. :facepalm: She needs prayers. :pray:
I see Sedevacantism as merely a thesis. We have several thesis to explain the Crisis in the Church. As I see it, it is not reasonable to be dogmatic about any of them.
1. Of course it's a novel idea (but not really because theologians discussed it) but not because 'regardless of who the ones are spreading error' but precisely because of the ones who are spreading the error. Novel ideas that aim to wreck the Church (Sillonism or Modernism, for example) are different than theological ideas which aim to preserve the papacy and indefectibility of the Church (Sedevacantism).1. It was never our job to preserve the papacy and the Church's indefectibility (Sedevacantism), but if it were, we must admit that it is altogether impossible to preserve anything by first eliminating the thing you're aiming to preserve.
2. If it was a case of a pontiff making an error in some book that would be something but really that isn't what's being talked about. It's the universal enforcing (which he can do) of false / condemned principles, a new faith, new sacraments, new theology, new priesthood, new 'mass', new vestments, etc. (which he can't do because the Church is protected by the Holy Ghost and can't be an institution that teaches, promotes and enforces error).
Meg really knows how to bring out the worst in people. :facepalm: She needs prayers. :pray:I just do my best to ignore her (along with a couple of others) as it appears her kind of bitter zeal and anger is totally okay.
If not for the sede movement (agree or disagree with sede-ism, i'm simply talking about the # of priests chapels they've produced), then every single Trad would be holding their breath, and praying white-knuckle that the new-sspx won't keep selling out to new-rome. But, barring an intervention from God, the new-sspx is toast. +Fellay will keep introducing new-rite/fake bishops/priests, keep cozying up to novus ordo diocese clerics, etc.Exactly. The SSPX will do nothing but maintain the status quo or make a deal with the apostates in Rome to gain a side chapel of tradition within the Novus Ordo religion, as they are in communion with the Vatican II hierarchy. Buy continuing to recognize Bergoglio and his VII predecessors as true popes, they are not opposing anything, and they are not resisting anything.
Without the Nine, the sspx would have a monopoly on Tradition. And hindsight being 20/20, we see that +Fellay and Co were infiltrators and destined to destroy it.
So, God allowed the Nine to split off (however scandalous and wrong that breakup happened), but the CURRENT situation shows this split is a huge blessing. Because the sspx is no longer Traditional.
Meg really knows how to bring out the worst in people. :facepalm: She needs prayers. :pray:
She elicits these responses due to her style of taking drive-by cheap shots, making personal insults ... while never engaging directly in any substantive discussion. It's actually the same tactic that Trump (deliberately) used to whip the Leftists up into a frenzy against him. Trump is not particularly conservative, and the Left do not hate him more than any other Republican in history due to his hyper-conservatism. They hate him because he takes these personal cheap shots against them, insults them, and trolls them. This is similar to Meg's style with regard to sedevacantism.
She elicits these responses due to her style of taking drive-by cheap shots, making personal insults ... while never engaging directly in any substantive discussion. It's actually the same tactic that Trump (deliberately) used to whip the Leftists up into a frenzy against him. Trump is not particularly conservative, and the Left do not hate him more than any other Republican in history due to his hyper-conservatism. They hate him because he takes these personal cheap shots against them, insults them, and trolls them. This is similar to Meg's style with regard to sedevacantism.
I realize that you consider it like blasphemy to criticize Holy Sedevacantism. Criticizing God's Chosen People and their (your) new doctrines cannot be tolerated. I get it.Quod erat demonstrandum.
But Trump is entertaining.
That debate he had with "sleepy Joe" was priceless.